What should be the bare minimum for a person to qualify as a “fair” console reviewer?

[GPX | 1,373]

I see it often on several of the “rate this console X” threads. That is, a fair few people who have hardly played much games on certain consoles, or barely even know they exist. Then they still proceed to give it a review and a rating score just for the heck of it. So with that brief intro, I would like to ask:

What do you think qualifies a person as a “fair” reviewer for console X?

Examples:

- a person who only has played one game for around 5 minutes?

- a person who has played at least 10 games and completing at least 1 level per game?

- a person who has completed at least 5 games? 

- a person who has played all the games library and about to break the insanity barrier?

 

[spacepup | 2,412]

They are just fun community polls.  If we had to start getting super nit-picky and specific about criteria for a fair reviewer, there'd be far less responses and I don't think it'd be as fun anymore.

[GPX | 1,373]

1 minute ago, spacepup said:

They are just fun community polls.  If we had to start getting super nit-picky and specific about criteria for a fair reviewer, there'd be far less responses and I don't think it'd be as fun anymore.

Yeah, but it’s also fun to be super nit-picky!

Plus I do believe there is merit to a discussion here. 

[ThePhleo | 2,185]

When viewing a console as a whole there’s only so many platforms that are even relevant when it comes to contributing to video game CULTURE.

With video game HISTORY every console matters, but with the culture of gaming only a couple dozen matter.

I think it’s fair to say if someone hasn’t played a library but knows that it exists then it’s safe to say that it’s okay to review it on a surface level.

I’ve never played a LJN VideoArt, Amstrad GX4000, Worlds of Wonder ActionMax, or Casio PV1000...but I don’t need to in order to know they failed, have incredibly tiny libraries, and by association of their market at the time must be inferior.

Likewise , I’ve never played a TG-16 other than emulating it, but I know it was the “other other” good console and it has a great library worth playing.

Edited May 12, 2021 by ThePhleo

[spacepup | 2,412]

Ok, fair enough.

Of the options you presented, I'd say in terms of *actually* rating and providing real thoughts on the console and games, you DON'T have to have to played everything, but playing just one game probably isn't enough either.

If you've played over a dozen games (doesn't have to be an exact number of course), and/or have watched a lot of gameplay for a system, you probably at least have SOMEWHAT decent of an idea.  

There's no magic number really, it's sort of subjective.  Maybe someone played 10 of the absolute MOST popular, well-known games for a system - say, N64 for example.  Well, maybe they didn't like ANY of them (uncommon, I know) and just really don't like the visual style of N64.  Then I suppose they at least have a somewhat informed opinion of that system and how much they personally enjoy it.

[GPX | 1,373]

12 minutes ago, ThePhleo said:

When viewing a console as a whole there’s only so many platforms that are even relevant when it comes to contributing to video game CULTURE.

With video game HISTORY every console matters, but with the culture of gaming only a couple dozen matter.

I think it’s fair to say if someone hasn’t played a library but knows that it exists then it’s safe to say that it’s okay to review it on a surface level.

I’ve never played a LJN VideoArt, Amstrad GX4000, Worlds of Wonder ActionMax, or Casio PV1000...but I don’t need to in order to know they failed, have incredibly tiny libraries, and by association of their market at the time must be inferior.

Likewise , I’ve never played a TG-16 other than emulating it, but I know it was the “other other” good console and it has a great library worth playing.

I know about the failures of certain consoles via magazines and forum discussions, without having ever played some of them. Personally, I set myself off-limits to review console X if I’ve never actually experienced the system firsthand. Some I’ve barely played a handful (eg. n64), but I’ve played 2 games quite in-depth and have read reviews for the majority of the games, so I feel like I’m qualified enough in this particular instance.

[Hammerfestus | 3,882]

You should have to have completed every game in the library.  Otherwise you may have missed the most awesome games.

Or have played almost none of the system.  If I drink something nasty I don’t have to keep drinking it to know that it’s awful.   

[Tanooki | 4,952]

I think it comes down to a blend of your four choices, but kind of also a fifth, background research on the system and game(s) in question too.

I'm more versed with Nintendo stuff first, second to that would be like the SNK, Sega, Sony stuff and PC(DOS/Win9X era) things too.  Beyond those it kind of gets into less used, maybe largely emulated territory, and beyond that mostly into second hand or very light first hand.

So when a system comes up on here since it's supposed to be fun, I still take what I put seriously enough and write out a reason, even may follow up with more in the same thread depending if I forgot a thing or someone went off on something else.

Take for instance that recent Jaguar one.  My hands on that is not of an owner, but of one using others (kiosk, etc) opportunities, or knowledge of the system from research or games that were so well done they got ported to-off of it (like JagDoom ports.)  In a case like that I look into not what so much fanboys or haters thing, but look at whats there, do some research to fill gaps, compare port level stuff over other formats, then see how well or rotten the library/format did and lay down a rating and reasoning.

If it's something I've used extensively as an owner or years(and I do mean it, not casual pecking) emulated/flash kitted out then I'll dig far more into it and really write it out from that experience.

 

I wouldn't expect anyone to have some god like knowledge having beat dozens or 100s of games in a library like that last choice on the list.  But I also feel if someone has barely touched the thing, the whole game or two for 5 minutes level of light touch, or perhaps never used it at all -- you have NO right to be rating it period as you have no sense of the thing at all and you're a fraud.  At a minimum someone should have at least as the list said played 10+ (or some small percentage of the library if it's into the 100s or 1000s) games at least through an entire stage(or more) and perhaps at least beaten a game or two from the library to be a fair enough judge.

[JamesRobot | 5,827]

Knee jerk reaction based on 30 seconds of gameplay footage from a 20+ year old commercial that I can barely recollect is the bare minimum for me to objectively rate a console.

I'd give the PS9 a 9.5 if memory serves.

 

[Sumez | 2,994]

Just a lack of bias

[Reed Rothchild | 9,584]

I guess a reasonable familiarity with the console and it's heavy hitters.

I've played through many of the most prominent PS1 titles such as MGS, the Final Fantasy's, SotN, the Resident Evils, THPS2, the Tomb Raiders, and so forth.  In addition to many other big names and deeper cuts.  So I gave it an educated 9.  I doubt playing more of the library would somehow lessen my sentiment.

Whereas I won't be able to give the Saturn a score when it comes out.  Sure I've played through Panzer Dragoon, and Sonic R, and Radiant Silvergun, and the multi-plats.

But PDS?  Burning Rangers?  Shining Force III?  The legions of imports?  No idea.  

[AstralSoul | 502]

The way I look at it is if I haven't actually played the console I rate it based on how much it appeals to me. Like Jaguar for instance. I never actually played the system so does that disqualify me from voting? I don't think it does. First off if no one voted on consoles they haven't played there'd be no reason to vote on lesser popular consoles like the Jaguar, 3DO, Apple Pippin, whatever it is. Might as well just vote "have you played this console before" and the majority would say no. But when I vote I do the research. I look at everything the console had to offer. I look at the library of games. I watch videos and read about the top games for it. If I can I try a few on emulator which unfortunately doesn't always work the way you'd want. But I go to the poll aemedyeitg knowledge so again like with the Jaguar, I voted on how likely i would be to want one of my own. The verdict was not likely at all. If I didn't research at all or just don't care to, that's when I say I'm uninterested. 

[mbd39 | 2,029]

I won't rate consoles that I don't know very well or haven't played.

 

[DefaultGen | 5,433]

I've played 3 Game.com games and I could tell you that every single thing Game.com is, stands for, and purports to be sucks balls. I can also tell you PS2 is the best console ever made in part because every genre is represented so well and it's easy to find exactly the kinds of games I like to play, even if I never personally want to play a boring JRPG or old ass sports game, which are enormous parts of the PS2 library. I don't think people are giving journalistic, wholistic reviews in an internet poll.

Also if there's an AVGN video about it, automatic 1.

Edited May 12, 2021 by DefaultGen

[Khromak | 770]

As I was thinking of my opinion on this topic I realized that most of my posts boil down to the same thing...it's a spectrum IMO. Any asshole can review a game/console if they want, but the value of their opinion will be more or less valuable based on their experience with the game/console.

People who have 10,000 hours into SMB 1 and can tell you about the subpixels where you can clip into blocks, how warp zone loading works, and have beaten the game blindfolded have a more valuable opinion about the merits of the game than someone who turned the game on, ran into the first goomba, and shut it off. They both still have some opinion of it and can give their opinion, but it's a lot less meaningful the less experience you have with the game.

Another example: if you've watch an AVGN episode about a game, you have some opinion about the game. You've seen its graphics, heard the sound, might have a reasonable idea how long it is, what the story is, etc. But there really is something missing, you haven't experienced the controls (which make a big difference), you don't necessarily know how far back you get sent if you die, how many extra lives you get for points, secrets, etc. so your opinion on the game is less valuable than that of someone who has watched the AVGN review and also played the game, vs the person who has beaten it, who has beaten it 5x a year every year since it came out.

If you once sat on a bus next to someone whose cousin's co-worker's accountant's dentist once bought a copy of the game, but never opened it or played it, sure you can give a review of the game, but it's going to mean jack shit.

[GPX | 1,373]

8 hours ago, Hammerfestus said:

You should have to have completed every game in the library.  Otherwise you may have missed the most awesome games.

Or have played almost none of the system.  If I drink something nasty I don’t have to keep drinking it to know that it’s awful.   

Knowing one bad drink doesn’t mean you know the bar or bartender.

A good point you raised in an indirect way. You can spend only a minute or two to get a rough idea of a game’s fun factor. But how much does this reflect on the console’s overall quality? 

Edited May 12, 2021 by GPX

[Hammerfestus | 3,882]

1 minute ago, GPX said:

Knowing one bad drink doesn’t mean you know the bar or bartender.

I seen that guy eyeballin me from the second I walked in here.

[GPX | 1,373]

4 hours ago, Khromak said:

As I was thinking of my opinion on this topic I realized that most of my posts boil down to the same thing...it's a spectrum IMO. Any asshole can review a game/console if they want, but the value of their opinion will be more or less valuable based on their experience with the game/console.

People who have 10,000 hours into SMB 1 and can tell you about the subpixels where you can clip into blocks, how warp zone loading works, and have beaten the game blindfolded have a more valuable opinion about the merits of the game than someone who turned the game on, ran into the first goomba, and shut it off. They both still have some opinion of it and can give their opinion, but it's a lot less meaningful the less experience you have with the game.

Another example: if you've watch an AVGN episode about a game, you have some opinion about the game. You've seen its graphics, heard the sound, might have a reasonable idea how long it is, what the story is, etc. But there really is something missing, you haven't experienced the controls (which make a big difference), you don't necessarily know how far back you get sent if you die, how many extra lives you get for points, secrets, etc. so your opinion on the game is less valuable than that of someone who has watched the AVGN review and also played the game, vs the person who has beaten it, who has beaten it 5x a year every year since it came out.

If you once sat on a bus next to someone whose cousin's co-worker's accountant's dentist once bought a copy of the game, but never opened it or played it, sure you can give a review of the game, but it's going to mean jack shit.

This is the kind of point I’m making. I’m acknowledging there’s a spectrum of opinions and just want to know general thoughts on a minimum level of understanding/experience for it to be a worthwhile review. Bearing in mind this is meant to be only a discussion, rather than to make it some kind of mandatory event for future polls. The discussion here is also relevant for reviewers of other media: Facebook, YouTube etc. 

[fox | 1,673]

7 hours ago, AstralSoul said:

 I never actually played the system so does that disqualify me from voting?

“Haven’t played, but interested” and “no interest in it” are poll options

[Strikezone1 | 155]

On 5/12/2021 at 8:33 AM, GPX said:

I see it often on several of the “rate this console X” threads. That is, a fair few people who have hardly played much games on certain consoles, or barely even know they exist. Then they still proceed to give it a review and a rating score just for the heck of it. So with that brief intro, I would like to ask:

What do you think qualifies a person as a “fair” reviewer for console X?

Examples:

- a person who only has played one game for around 5 minutes?

- a person who has played at least 10 games and completing at least 1 level per game?

- a person who has completed at least 5 games? 

- a person who has played all the games library and about to break the insanity barrier?

 

A great question/discussion topic.

Obviously your first and last examples are extreme ends of the spectrum. 

Personally, I'll say having played at least around 15-20 different games. And by playing I mean more then just a 5 minute trial session. Mix in too having beaten at least a few.

[darkchylde28 | 1,546]

On 5/12/2021 at 8:43 AM, spacepup said:

There's no magic number really, it's sort of subjective.  Maybe someone played 10 of the absolute MOST popular, well-known games for a system - say, N64 for example.  Well, maybe they didn't like ANY of them (uncommon, I know) and just really don't like the visual style of N64.  Then I suppose they at least have a somewhat informed opinion of that system and how much they personally enjoy it.

Hey, just @ me the next time you're going to indirectly use me as an example. 

[T-Pac | 7,587]

I think that, to reliably review a game system, you should have:

A) played most of the library's "staples" (regardless of genre or personal preference) for enough time to get a feel for each games

B) played on the original hardware or a close approximation

You wouldn't be getting the proper Atari 5200 experience without using the 5200 controller, and you wouldn't have a good sense of the Genesis' scope without running the gamut from Columns to Comix Zone.

-CasualCart

[YOURTURN | 1,257]

Since the good old days cannot be reprised...

- The system itself should have be graded based on ease of use, with the controllers being considered a part of the system. Special controllers are optional, but should be omitted if they do not offer a better experience.

- The games chosen due to overall preference should be primary, with ones that might be within said reviewer's game play style should also be omitted. They should be referenced, but the goal is to get an authentic experience.

If they ask questions about where Mario has to go to get the Master Sword, or which teleport pipe will let them save the Princess quickly, as opposed to doing both factors...

You have HA "investors" and not a "fair" reviewer.

[fcgamer | 4,753]

On 5/13/2021 at 6:30 AM, GPX said:

A good point you raised in an indirect way. You can spend only a minute or two to get a rough idea of a game’s fun factor. But how much does this reflect on the console’s overall quality? 

I disagree with this. There are many games that took a bit of playtime to "get into", and similarly there are games that at first blush may seem fun, but actually are terrible.

[fcgamer | 4,753]

I'm sure this thread has nothing to do with the scathing review of the SNES I made.

IMO it ultimately should come down to this: is the person only saying "XYZ console sucks", or are do they have reasons to back up their opinion? Similarly, if someone really likes a console that folks often deem as "shitty", what reasons do they have for this opinion?

In the end it's sort of like someone that drinks craft beer debating about beer with someone that only liked Budweiser or Coors. Lay out some reasons for your opinion, whether others agree or not shouldn't matter, I mean we are discussing opinions here.